ReviewCardiology journal2025
Artificial Intelligence based fractional flow reserve.
Review in Cardiology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A narrative review on the use of artificial intelligence in cardiovascular medicine.Cardiovascular diagnosis and therapy · 2026Review
- Current State of Computed Tomography Derived Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR-CT) and Its Diagnostic Advantages.Clinical Medicine Insights. Cardiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fractional flow reserve (FFR) - a physiological indicator of coronary stenosis significance - has now become a widely used parameter also in the guidance of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Several studies have shown the superiority of FFR compared to visual assessment, contributing to the reduction in clinical endpoints. However, the current approach to FFR assessment requires coronary instrumentation with a dedicated pressure wire and thus increasing invasiveness, cost, and duration of the procedure. Alternative, noninvasive methods of FFR assessment based on computational fluid dynamics are being widely tested; these approaches are generally not fully automated and may sometimes require substantial computational power. Nowadays, one of the most rapidly expanding fields in medicine is the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in therapy optimization, diagnosis, treatment, and risk stratification. AI usage contributes to the development of more sophisticated methods of imaging analysis and allows for the derivation of clinically important parameters in a faster and more accurate way. Over the recent years, AI utility in deriving FFR in a noninvasive manner has been increasingly reported. In this review, we critically summarize current knowledge in the field of AI-derived FFR based on data from computed tomography angiography, invasive angiography, optical coherence tomography, and intravascular ultrasound. Available solutions, possible future directions in optimizing cathlab performance, including the use of mixed reality, as well as current limitations standing behind the wide adoption of these techniques, are overviewed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.